ReviewCureus2025
Phacoemulsification Versus Manual Small Incision Cataract Surgery: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phacoemulsification and manual small incision cataract surgery (MSICS) are two widely practised techniques for cataract surgery worldwide. However, their comparative efficacy in terms of postoperative visual acuity (VA) remains debated. This paper is an umbrella review for this topic, which synthesises evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses directly comparing VA outcomes between the two techniques. PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and the Excerpta Medica database (Embase) were searched, with 712 results remaining after de-duplication. After screening, six papers underwent full-text review, leaving four systematic reviews/meta-analyses for final inclusion. Inclusion criteria were English-language systematic reviews directly comparing postoperative VA between phacoemulsification and MSICS in adults undergoing cataract surgery. Data extraction focused on uncorrected and best-corrected VA (BCVA) at early (≤1 week), intermediate (six to eight weeks), and late (≥6 months) time points. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The four included reviews ranged from six to 11 primary studies each, with total sample sizes ranging from 1315 to 76,838 eyes. They were published in the years 2013 and 2015. Across reviews, no statistically significant differences were consistently found in BCVA at any time point. Two reviews reported small early advantages for phacoemulsification in uncorrected VA (UCVA, odds ratios (ORs) of 1.40 and relative risk (RR) of 0.90 for achieving ≥6/9 or ≥6/18, respectively), but these differences were not maintained at later follow-up. Complication profiles were broadly similar. AMSTAR 2 ratings indicated high confidence in the Cochrane review, moderate confidence in two reviews, and low-to-moderate confidence in one review. Evidence from conducted systematic reviews suggests that phacoemulsification and MSICS yield similar postoperative VA outcomes. As such, the choice of technique may be guided more by resource availability, surgeon expertise, and patient-specific considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.